California · Riverside

Canyon Crest Assisted Living and Memory Care.

RCFE · Memory Care6 bedsDementia-trained staff
Facility · Riverside
A 6-bed RCFE · Memory Care with one citation on file.
Licensed beds
6
Last inspection
Jan 2026
Last citation
Jan 2026
Operated by
Alara Health Services Inc
Snapshot

A small home, reviewed on public record.

Canyon Crest Assisted Living and Memory Care

© Google Street View

Approximate location
Peer Comparison

Compared to 152 California facilities with a similar number of beds.

RCFE memory care · 36-month window. Higher percentile = better performance on inspection record. Source: California Dept. of Social Services · Community Care Licensing.

Severity rank
88th%
Weighted citations per bed.
peer median
0
100
Repeat rank
Not enough repeat citations
among peers to rank.
Repeat deficiencies as share of total.
Frequency rank
87th%
Deficiencies per inspection.
peer median
0
100

Rankings based on 36-month CDSS inspection data. Severity and frequency: fewer citations = higher percentile. Repeat rate: lower repeat citation share = higher percentile.

FACILITY WATCH · BETA

Canyon Crest Assisted Living and Memory Care has 1 citation on record. Know the moment anything changes.

New findings, complaint investigations, or status changes — emailed to you free.

Save for comparison:
The Record

Citation history, plotted month by month.

1 deficiency on record. Each bar is a month with a citation.

Peer median 19 · dashed
Last citation: JAN 2026. Compared against peer median (dashed).
peer median
JAN 2026
Jul 2024as of Jun 2026

Finding distribution

1 total · 36 months

Scope × Severity (CMS A–L)

Isolated
Pattern
Widespread
Sev 4 · IJ
J
K
L
Sev 3
G
H
I
Sev 2
D1
E
F
Sev 1
A
B
C
The Rulebook

The rules that apply to this facility.

State requirements with the exact regulation citation, plain-language explanation, and a question to ask on tour. Rules this facility has been cited for appear first.

What dementia-care training must staff complete?22 CCR §87705 / HSC §1569.625
+
Plain language

Because a facility markets dementia or Alzheimer's care, state law mandates higher training standards: 12 hours of initial dementia training (6 hours before a staff member works independently with residents, 6 more within the first 4 weeks), 8 hours of annual dementia in-service every year thereafter, and an administrator must include 8 hours of dementia-specific continuing education in every 2-year recertification cycle. Training must cover individualized care plans, behavioral expressions, appropriate supervision, and the facility's dementia care philosophy.

Ask on tour

Can you show me each direct-care staffer's most recent dementia training certificate, and tell me when their next refresher is due?

Tour Prep

Questions to ask before you visit.

A short pre-tour checklist tailored to Canyon Crest Assisted Living and Memory Care's record and state requirements.

01 /

One complaint is on file with CDSS — was it substantiated, and what remediation did the facility take in response to any substantiated findings?

Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.

02 /

The January 2026 inspection cited one deficiency — can you provide your corrective-action plan for the cited item, and show families any documentation of remediation steps taken?

Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.

03 /

The facility holds a 6-bed license and operates as a memory-care RCFE — can you provide the written dementia-care program required by Title 22 §87705?

Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.

Full Inspection Record

Every inspection visit, verbatim.

5 inspections in the public record, most recent first. Click any row to expand — cited rows open automatically.

5
reports on file
1
total deficiencies
2026-01-28
Other Visit
No findings
Inspector · Yolanda Delgado

Plain-language summary

Investigators looked into multiple complaints about care and supervision at this facility, including allegations that staff were not providing adequate help, did not seek timely medical attention, failed to meet hygiene needs, did not communicate effectively, retaliated against a resident, and overcharged for care. Staff and the licensee denied all allegations, and investigators found no preponderance of evidence to prove any of the violations occurred—for example, facility records showed the resident received baths three times a week in July 2025, and when the resident reported pain on July 4, 2025, staff called 911 (the resident later refused to go to the hospital). The complaints are classified as unsubstantiated.

Read raw inspector notes

(Continued from Page 1) A review of R1’s Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated July 2025 revealed R1 was given M1 from 07/11/2025 through 07/27/2025. R1 was discharged from the facility on 07/28/2025. The licensee revealed they did not know where R1 transferred to. R1 did not have a cell phone number. Attempts to contact R1’s responsible party were not successful. Regarding the allegation Staff were not providing adequate care and supervision, it was alleged staff was overheard being told by the licensee “don’t help him if you don’t have to”. Based on staff interviews, 3 of 3 staff denied this statement was made by the licensee to them. A review of facility records for R1 was completed. This review included R1’s Bowel Movement Monthly Monitoring Record and Bathing Log. The records were for the month of July 2025. The records indicated services and tracking were being provided by staff. R1 was discharged from the facility on 07/28/2025. The licensee revealed they did not know where R1 transferred to. R1 did not have a cell phone number. Attempts to contact R1’s responsible party were not successful. Regarding the allegation staff did not seek timely medical attention for a resident, it was alleged on 07/04/2025, R1 experienced an event in which staff asked the licensee if they could call a nurse, but the licensee said no. Based on staff interviews, 3 of 3 staff denied this allegation. The interview with the licensee revealed R1 indicated they were in pain and staff called 911. When medical professionals arrived, R1 refused to go with them to the hospital. The LPA requested documents regarding this event and was told that if the facility had documents they would have provided them to the LPA. The LPA did not receive documents regarding this event. R1 was discharged from the facility on 07/28/2025. The licensee revealed they did not know where R1 transferred to. R1 did not have a cell phone number. Attempts to contact R1’s responsible party were not successful. Regarding the allegation staff did not meet a resident’s hygiene need, it was alleged R1 had not received a shower in a week. Based on staff interviews, 3 of 3 staff denied this allegation. A review of R1’s Bathing Log for the month of July 2025 revealed that R1 refused a bath on 07/18/2025 because the staff that R1 preferred was not working. It further documented R1 received a bath 3 days a week for the month of July 2025. R1 was discharged from the facility on 07/28/2025. The licensee revealed they did not know where R1 transferred to. R1 did not have a cell phone number. Attempts to contact R1’s responsible party were not successful. (Continued on Page 3) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 (Continued from Page 2) Regarding the allegation staff do not communicate effectively, it was alleged staff do not speak English. Based on staff interviews, 3 of 3 staff denied this allegation. The LPA interviewed all 4 residents. The resident interviews revealed 2 of 4 indicated they were able to communicate effectively with staff. As for the remaining 2 residents, 1 did not want to participate in the interview and the other was unable to answer questions posed in the interview. Regarding the allegation staff were retaliating against a resident, it was alleged R1 felt they were being retaliated against by the licensee. The interview with the licensee was completed and she denied retaliating against R1. Based on staff interviews, 3 of 3 staff denied this allegation. It could not be determined how the licensee specifically retaliated against R1. R1 was discharged from the facility on 07/28/2025. The licensee revealed they did not know where R1 transferred to. R1 did not have a cell phone number. Attempts to contact R1’s responsible party were not successful. Regarding the allegation staff were overcharging a resident, it was alleged the licensee was charging R1 more than the standard Supplement Security Income (SSI) rate. The licensee denied overcharging R1. A review of R1’s Admission Agreement dated 01/03/2025, revealed a section that allows for it to be indicated whether the resident’s source of funding included SSI/SSP funding or it does not include SSI/SSP funding. Neither option was marked. The licensee reported R1’s source of funding was insurance. The licensee reported the facility had never received any payment for R1 since R1’s admission on 01/03/2025. R1 was discharged from the facility on 07/28/2025. The licensee revealed they did not know where R1 transferred to. R1 did not have a cell phone number. Attempts to contact R1’s responsible party were not successful. Based on the investigation, the above allegations are unsubstantiated. Although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is no preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur. An exit interview was conducted with Zainab Choudry and a copy of this report along with LIC811- Confidential Names list was provided.

2026-01-28
Annual Compliance Visit
Type B · 1 finding

Plain-language summary

During an unannounced inspection on December 18, 2025, inspectors found that the facility's owner initially denied having any connection to a hospice agency, but later admitted she owned the hospice company that was providing services to two of the three residents in care. This created a conflict of interest that was not properly disclosed. A violation was issued for failure to comply with conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements.

Type B22 CCR §87207
Verbatim citation text · 22 CCR §87207

Licensee made misleading statement about her ownership of a hospice agency that was providing services to residents in care. The licensee initially denied any connection and then later admitted to ownership interest in the hospice agency. this poses an immediate, safety and personal rights risks to persons in care.

Read raw inspector notes

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Yolanda Delgado is conducting an unannounced case management visit on this date to serve a deficiency. During the visit on 12/18/2025, the licensee made false claims regarding not having connections to any hospice agencies that were offering services at the facility. The LPA conducted an interview with a relevant witness who revealed that the licensee owned the hospice agency that was providing services to two of the three residents in care. In addition, the licensee indicated she misunderstood what the LPA was asking and provided clarification that she does own interest in the hospice agency that was providing services to residents in her licensed facility. Based on the information obtained today, one (1) deficiency is being issued per Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8, Article 4, Section 87207 of the California Code of Regulations. This report, LIC809D and Appeal Rights was reviewed with Zainab Choudry and copy provided at the time of exit interview.

2026-01-28
Complaint Investigation
Unsubstantiated
No findings
Inspector · Yolanda Delgado

Plain-language summary

A complaint alleged that residents were forced to place on hospice services. Interviews with family members and a review of facility records did not find evidence to support this allegation—families reported that hospice decisions were made by them, and admission documents showed residents were already receiving or later enrolled in hospice care. The complaint was not substantiated.

Read raw inspector notes

(Continued from Page 1) R2 was not available for an interview. R2’s responsible party was interviewed and reported R2 was receiving hospice services prior to being admitted to this facility. The allegation of being forced to place R2 on hospice was denied. R3 was interviewed and was not able to answer questions. R3’s responsible party was interviewed and they were not sure if R3 was receiving hospice services or not. They also denied being forced to place R3 on hospice. It was reported that it was possible another family member could be aware of R3 receiving hospice services. A review of R3’s Admission Agreement revealed R3 was admitted on 10/28/2024. R3’s hospice admission document was reviewed and it revealed hospice services were initiated on 12/05/2025. The hospice admission document did not have a spot for signatures. R1 and R3 were receiving hospice services from the same hospice agency, however R2 was receiving hospice services from a different hospice agency. Therefore, based on interviews and facility record reviews, the allegation is unsubstantiated. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is no preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur. An exit interview was conducted with Zainab Choudry and a copy of this report along with LIC811- Confidential Names list was provided.

2025-12-18
Other Visit
No findings

Plain-language summary

An unannounced annual inspection found the facility in full compliance with state regulations across all areas reviewed, including resident and staff records, staffing levels, facility cleanliness and safety, food service, fire safety equipment, and emergency preparedness. The administrator certification is current, background checks are in order, and the facility maintains appropriate supplies and safeguards for medications and hazardous materials. No violations were cited.

Read raw inspector notes

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Yolanda Delgado arrived unannounced to conduct an annual inspection. Upon arrival LPA was greeted by facility staff and granted entry by Shelley Fehlings. LPA began inspection with introduction, visit purpose and provided the facility caregiver with LPA identification and business card. Resident record review began- Five (5) records were reviewed. LPA reviewed for admission agreement, medical assessment and TB test results, consent forms, identification and emergency information, appraisal needs and service plans, centrally stored medication/destruction records, safeguard for personal property/valuables, and personal rights notification. This facility is meeting documentation requirements. Employee records review began- Three (3) records were reviewed. LPA reviewed employee record for first aid certification, fingerprint clearance, personnel/job application, health screening and TB test results, criminal record statement, employee rights, training verification, and current administrator certification. CPR and requirements have been met. The facility employs enough staff to maintain cleanliness and meet the needs of the clients in care. Administrator certification is present and current 05/16/2027. Corporation or LLC is active and in good standing. Physical Plant and Safety of Environment/Operational Requirements- LPA toured the facility inside and outside. The home is maintained at a comfortable temperature for the clients. Lighting is sufficient for safety and comfort. Water temperature measured 109.0 degrees F. Laundry facilities and a locked cabinet is present for storing laundry soap and other chemicals in the garage. All outdoor and indoor passageways are free of obstruction. A locked area is provided for medications and sharp objects. LPA verified there is a telephone working at this location. (Continued on LIC809, Page 2) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 (Continued from LIC809, Page 1) Food Service- Food supply meets the of one week supply of nonperishable and 2-day supply of perishables food on hand. A menu is posted, foods are dated to assure safety. Food prep areas are clean and organized. LPA made observations throughout the inspection process to assess if the facility remains in conformity with the State Fire Marshall regulations. The facility has not exceeded its capacity limitation, and the structure remains unchanged according to the approved floor plan. Smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors were tested and found to be operational. Fire extinguishers are tested or replaced annually and were last done so on 05/16/2025. The facility conducting emergency disaster drills quarterly; last done 12/16/2025. This home does have a pool and is locked at all times with fencing that is more than 5 ft. high around the perimeter of the pool. Based on the information received during this visit today, there are zero (0) deficiency is being cited per Title 22, Division 6 of The California Code of Regulations. This report was reviewed with Zainba Choudry and a copy provided at the time of the exit interview.

2024-07-17
Other Visit
No findings
Inspector · Javina George

Plain-language summary

This was a pre-licensing inspection on July 17, 2024, of a home applying to care for six residents, including some who are bedridden or non-ambulatory. The inspector found the home met requirements in all areas reviewed, including safety equipment, emergency supplies, food storage, sleeping arrangements, bathrooms with grab bars, and activities for residents. The facility was approved for licensing pending completion of liability insurance.

Read raw inspector notes

On 7/17/24 Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Javina George made an announced visit to the facility for the purpose of conducting a prelicensing inspection. LPA met with Applicant/Administrator Saher Choudry, whom accompanied LPA for the inspection. The Applicant has submitted an application for 6 residents (5 non ambulatory and 1 bedridden). On 1/5/24 the Riverside County Fire Department approved a fire clearance for which the applicant has applied for. The master bedroom, (bedroom #2), is specifically for a bedridden resident and rooms 1, 3 and 4 are for non ambulatory residents. The facility has an approved hospice waiver for three (3). The home is a single story structure consisting of (4) bedrooms, (3) bathrooms, kitchen, formal dining room, family room, garage, backyard with a covered patio, locked and fenced pool and jacuzzi, and a shed that is being used for storage. The facility is utilizing video surveillance on the exterior areas of the home. The bedrooms were observed to have bed, lighting, night stand, chest of drawers and area for sitting. The bathrooms had non skid mats, and grab bars. There is plenty of extra linen (sheets, blankets, towels) that were observed to be in good repair. The smoke and carbon monoxide detectors are a dual system that were tested and found to be operable. The hot water temperature was tested and was found to be within regulatory limits measuring at 118.4 degrees Fahrenheit. The facility is equipped with flash lights, night lights and solar panels. The facility has an emergency disaster plan, dementia plan and infection control training plan on file. The facility has a sufficient supply of dishes, cooking and eating utensils, that were observed to be in good repair. The facility food supply was observed to be sufficient as there was 2 day supply of perishable and a 7 day supply of nonperishable food items. The facility has an emergency food and water supply. There is a fully stocked first aid kit. The passageways, and ramps/inclines are clear and free from obstruction. The home has 1 fully charged fire extinguisher. The facility does not have any known guns or ammunition stored on grounds. The sharps/knives are stored in a locked cabinet next to the refrigerator. The medications will be kept in individual 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 boxes, that will stored in a locked cabinet below/next to the kitchen sink. Upon entry to the home in the foyer on the right wall the required postings (facility sketch, resident council, theft and loss policy, personal rights, PUB475 CCL/dept complaint poster and he Long term Care Ombudsman poster were observed to be posted. The facility was observed to have activities to encourage socialization such as, coloring books, books dice game as well as a covered patio with plenty of outdoor space for walking and a basketball court. The applicant successfully completed COMP III orientation on 4/25/24. Based on today's inspection it is the recommendation that the home be licensed once the following is completed: -Liability insurance (pending license number) An exit interview was conducted and a copy of this report was provided to applicant Saher Choudry.

Family reviews

No reviews yet — be the first to share your experience

Related in this city

Other memory care options nearby.

Nearby cities · same county

More options in neighboring cities

Licensed memory care in other cities within this county region — useful when your search radius crosses city limits.

Same operator group

Other facilities under this operator

Alara Health Services Inc — as recorded on state license extracts. Each facility still has its own inspection history.

Is this listing wrong? Report an issue →
Reports help us maintain accurate facility information. Your report will be reviewed within 1-2 business days.
Editorial Independence

StarlynnCare receives no referral commissions, lead fees, or paid placement from any operator. Rankings are derived solely from state inspection records and verified family reviews.